Misplaced Trust

If someone hated you and wanted you to die, would you follow their health advice? Would you let them talk you into behaviors you knew were risky? Would you listen to them at all?

Yet, people let government employees tell them what rights they have.

I see this all the time in responses from people when I say something about the right to own and carry weapons. Particularly on Quora, and especially among those who are saddled with a government which doesn’t want them to have guns. (Even more than the U.S. government’s aversion to an armed population, I mean,)

They constantly tell me what that specific gang of bullies says their rights are (and are not). They act as though I’m a barbarian for recognizing natural human rights.

If I pointed this out to them they might object that “their” government doesn’t hate them nor want them to die; that it is only looking out for their best interests. Judging by the actions and the results of those actions, they sure could have fooled me. If they want the best for their subjects, that is.

It’s a sad thing to see. I don’t want to see people enslaved, especially when they do it to themselves. I don’t want them trusting a gang of thugs to tell them what their rights are, or fooling them into believing rights are only privileges, and that only Neanderthals like me would expect anyone to respect rights.

Open This Content

Forced Association Compounds Bullying

I had a student years ago that was the target of bullies. He wasn’t as socially adept as others, and few people liked him. The fact that he didn’t act pitiful made it so he didn’t get the people who want to feel good about themselves to take his side.

One day, I see a group of older girls picking on him. This is to the point that he yells something very angry at them. Some teachers overheard and came over and lectured him about not saying mean things.

Another day, those same girls who liked to pick on this kid came up to me and said that he hit one of them. I blew it off. Eventually, it became a big issue and I kind of got in trouble for not making a bigger deal of it. The kid almost got kicked out of the organization I was teaching in for this instance. I told his mother and the board that I fully took this kid’s side and that I knew those girls kept acting really jerky to this kid.

This is something people don’t consider about rules, culture, forced association, and incentives. The incentives of this group made it so this kid could get bullied to the point where he lashed out, then the bullies could get him hurt more by getting “authorities” on their side to act against him for reacting to their behavior.

Bullying behavior emerges from the incentives of cultures and systems. By punishing bullies and making strict rules, you will often just make it so another brand of assholish behavior emerges.

Disassociation is the only thing that can align interests properly. People who want the money of the customer makes systems that protect their customers, while individuals can leave at anytime to other systems that they feel act in their interests better. This incentive structure protects people and ends bullying. Trying to end bullying without having freedom of association turns into a game of whack-a-mole. You make rules and punishments for one behavior and it just shows up in a slightly different form somewhere else.

Open This Content

Rationed Rights

I know someone who, against my advice, recently got a concealed carry permit. His experience drives home why I believe it’s a mistake to beg bullies for permission to exercise your natural human rights.

The process is insulting and degrading. It is designed to treat you like a common criminal.

There was a “fingerprinting”– this of a person who has already been fingerprinted multiple times and undergone an extensive background check in order to get his current government “job”. That wasn’t good enough.

Then, there were drawn-out delays caused by a technical glitch wherein they wouldn’t accept that he had worked for the same place twice, but with a different job sandwiched in between. The “system” wouldn’t accept that answer. Not sure how a person’s job history is supposed to validate their right to carry a weapon anyway.

I’m supposing my long-term “self-employment” would disqualify me in their eyes, or at least give them reasons to be suspicious and put me through the wringer.

Then there was the delay after eventual approval while waiting for his rights to come by mail so that he could start exercising them. In all, I believe the process took a month and a half or so. Rights delayed are rights denied… but so are rights licensed.

I understand, somewhat, the desire to “stay legal”, if you believe that will keep you safe from the molesters in blue (and their co-conspirators) you might encounter. But that safety is an illusion. They’ll murder you regardless of your permit, pat each other on the back for a job well done, go grab a beer, and get a paid vacation out of it.

Open This Content

Bullies, Outrageous Laws, Libertarian Unpopularity and Failures (29m) – Editor’s Break 081

Editor’s Break 081 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: bullying our children into standing up for themselves toward bullies; when laws become totally outrageous and we’re no longer willing to support them; why libertarianism is unpopular; how libertarianism fails and why that’s really a bad question to begin with; and more.

Listen to Editor’s Break 081 (29m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe via RSS here, or in any podcast app by searching for “everything voluntary”.

Open This Content

Standing Up for Liberty Isn’t Political

Liberty is the “political” sphere’s null set. Politics is the active (rather than passive) attempt to violate liberty.

For example: humans have always had the natural right to arm themselves. This wasn’t even debated; it’s just how it is, always has been, and always will be. Nothing can change it.

Then someone decided to use politics to stop people from arming themselves, and punish those who didn’t cooperate with this violation.

Some of those who resist being violated use politics in an attempt to fight back, but this is just playing the bullies’ game– by the rules the bullies set up and enforce. It might get you a temporary reprieve, but in the long run, it’s a losing strategy.

Standing up for your liberty, by living it, isn’t political. But trying to stop people from living their liberty is.

Anti-gun activists and anti-knife activists (or their supporters) are being political.

Gun rights (and knife rights) activists– especially those simply ignoring the “laws” and doing what they have a natural human right to do– aren’t.

You have no obligation to tolerate those trying to stop you from doing what you have a right to do. You have no obligation to play politics in self-defense. Why march or v*te for your rights? Just exercise them.

Open This Content

Scott Adams on Guns

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame wrote a post about the “gun debate” a few days ago. It’s worth a read, even if you won’t agree with his conclusion. Here’s the link to it, if you are interested.

Now I’ll point out where he’s wrong.

“The persuasion filter sees individuals with different risk profiles favoring policies they feel will keep them safer even if it makes someone else less safe.”

Maybe some people do that. Especially the anti-gun bigots. But I don’t. The only people truly less safe around guns are those intent on archating. And I don’t care about their safety, and I don’t believe you should, either. After all, how much do they care about anyone else’s safety?

“…no one involved in the gun debate, on either side, is engaged in honest, rational debate.”

Yes, one side is. You just want to spin it to be nice to the anti-gun bigots; to not make them feel bad.

“…you see people who are pursuing their own self-interest as they see it at the expense of other people.”

At the “expense” of who, exactly? Rapists, politicians, muggers, home invaders, etc.? Since when are you obligated to protect the feelings of those who want to molest you? It is in every decent person’s self-interest to encourage gun ownership for everyone. Even if I go crazy and try to kill an innocent person, and they shoot me in self-defense, I completely support their right to do so. Maybe knowing they are armed would help keep me sane, or scare me into not attacking them even if I go nuts.

“…gun ownership is a freedom granted in the Constitution”

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And this is the foundation of just about ALL anti-gun bigotry.

Gun ownership (and the carrying of guns and all other weapons) is not a freedom granted by anything. It is a fundamental human right which predates government. It exists now, everywhere, whether the ruling gang of bullies respects the right or not. It will still exist long after government is forgotten in the mists of time. It would exist if the Constitution had never been written, and will exist if the Second Amendment is abolished. No “laws” can touch the right, although they can give bullies excuses to murder and cage those exercising the right.

“…the unspoken part of those preferences includes the knowledge that some number of innocent people, including children, will die because of current gun laws.”

Yes. Gun “laws” kill. The answer isn’t more anti-gun “laws”, resulting in more innocent deaths. It is more wrong to “do something” that results in innocent deaths, than to fail to do something that might trade some of those lives for others. In other words, it is more wrong to shoot an innocent person than it is to fail to jump into the path of the bullet to save the life.

“We humans can’t say aloud that we prefer our position on guns (either pro or con) even though we know that getting our way will mean certain death to innocent people.”

Innocent people will die even if guns had never been invented. More innocents will die if you manage to take guns away from all the good people, leaving them only in the hands of criminals, police, and the military (and all the other government goons who would be exempt from the prohibition). Why make it even harder and less likely that those innocents will have the proper effective tools available for self-defense when they are attacked? That’s just evil.

“…we live in a political system that allows (and maybe encourages) people to vote for their self-interest, as they see it, even if the outcome would lead to the death of other citizens.”

And this is why rights and liberty are never legitimately up for a v*te. It is wrong to decide against human rights for other people, no matter how many people agree with you.

“…for some types of political decisions, people will die no matter which direction you go. And that means people will vote in a way that makes it less likely they will be the ones dying and more likely it will be some other class of people doing the dying.”

I will gladly help people of other “classes” learn to safely handle and use a gun. Again, this is why “politics” is a horrible thing to allow to meddle with a society. To me, there are really only two “classes” of people: those who archate and those who don’t. Or maybe it would be better expressed as those who make a habit of archating and those who avoid it. I want all innocent people to prevail against their attackers every time, no matter what their bank account, skin color, ethnicity, place of birth, religion, sex, or orientation. It’s not a difficult thing to explain, but apparently it is difficult to accept.

Honest Pro-gun argument: “I realize the right to own guns will result in the death of thousands of innocent people. But owning a gun lowers the risk for my family, in my opinion, because of my specific situation, and so I favor gun rights.” or… Honest Anti-gun argument: “I realize that some forms of gun control could result in the deaths of people who would otherwise be able to defend themselves, but I’m okay with that because my family’s risk would be lower if there were fewer guns in circulation.”

Well, I question the use of the word “honest”. Why are the words “thousands” and “innocent” omitted from the anti-gun argument? And how would the anti-gun bigot’s family be safer? They might feel safer, if they are oblivious. But if they don’t archate, the good guys won’t be shooting them, and not having a gun won’t protect them from the bad guys who will still have guns or another way to impose their will on unarmed victims. The anti-gun argument is based on wishful thinking. A belief in magic.

I want to do what I can to prevent the deaths of innocent people. Making sure it is easier for them to own and carry a gun is part of that. Making sure they don’t feel so hopeless they want to kill themselves is an even bigger part. Getting rid of anti-gun “laws” doesn’t result in innocent deaths–existence results in innocent deaths.

“I’m pro-gun, with a preference for a national no-buy list.”

Who gets to create this list? The bullies of government who want to find any reason they can manufacture to say as many people as possible are prohibited from having a gun? No thanks.

“Private gun owners stand no chance against a professional military”

Tell that to a growing list of private gun owners who have humiliated professional militaries all over the planet. But it sounds right if you don’t actually think it through.

I understand Adams wants to look balanced on the issue. But there is no balance to the question of slavery verse liberty. The appearance of balance is a deception.

Open This Content